Standing Committee E

[Mr. Peter Atkinson in the Chair]

Communications Bill

Clause 293 - Code relating to provision for deafand visually impaired

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 285, in 
clause 293, page 254, line 21, leave out 'from time to time' and insert 
 'at least once every three years'.—[Mr. Whittingdale.]
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Peter Atkinson: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
 Amendment No. 315, in 
clause 293, page 254, line 29, at end insert— 
 '(1A) In exercising its functions under subsection (1) OFCOM must ensure that the providers of services to which this section applies provide users of those services with adequate information regarding the availability of and access to subtitling.'.
 Amendment No. 316, in 
clause 293, page 254, line 30, leave out 'tenth' and insert 'fifth'.
 Amendment No. 313, in 
clause 293, page 254, line 43, leave out '10' and insert '50'.
 Amendment No. 314, in 
clause 293, page 255, line 22, at end insert 
 'taking account of whether a programme is provided on a channel which is normally offered to consumers as a separate service or as one of a number of channels forming part of a single service'.
 Amendment No. 284, in 
clause 293, page 255, line 41, at end insert— 
 '(9A) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to collate and publish at least once each year details of the extent to which every service to which this section applies has met the obligations referred to in subsection (3).'.
 Amendment No. 243, in 
clause 299, page 258, line 34, after 'channels', insert— 
 '(aa) the listing and promotion of programmes accompanied by aids to viewing including subtitling, audiodescription and signing;'.
 Amendment No. 244, in 
clause 299, page 258, line 35, at end insert— 
 '(2A) The code must include minimum requirements and best practice guidance on making electronic programme guides accessible to people who are blind, partially sighted or have other disabilities.'.
 New clause 15—Conditions to secure access to audiodescription— 
'(1) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to set such general conditions as they consider appropriate for securing that audiodescribed television programmes, so far as provided in digital form, are— 
 (a) broadcast or otherwise transmitted; and 
 (b) made available for reception in an intelligible form, 
 by means of the electronic communications networks described in the conditions.'.
 New clause 27—Conditions to secure access to public teletext service— 
'The regulatory regime for the public teletext service includes the conditions that OFCOM considers appropriate for securing that the provision of so much of the public teletext service as is provided in digital form is accessible to persons who are blind and partially sighted.'.
 I should inform the Committee that we anticipate a Division in the House shortly. When that happens, I shall adjourn the Committee for 15 minutes from the start of the Division.

Richard Allan: Thank you, Mr. Atkinson, for your flexible use of eyesight before the break, so that I was not left hanging when the Bell went. I hope to introduce in fairly short fashion the amendments that stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey).
 The amendments relate directly to the additional help given to people who have visual or hearing impairment so that they may access television services in the same way as anyone else. The amendments are designed to press the Minister about the proposals and question him about how far and how quickly we should go, and how comprehensive the range of measures should be. It is helpful to test him on those matters because there is a large group of people who need access to such services to enjoy television. We should accept that on its own the market cannot necessarily deliver that. It requires additional assistance. All of us should take an interest in the matter because visual and hearing impairment can happen to anyone at any time. It will happen to a large number of those in this Room as we get older, if it not because of any other catastrophe before that. A large number of us will want the additional facilities dealt with in the clause. 
 Amendment No. 315 deals with making information available to people about services. Speaking to his amendments, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) raised some important points about the use of electronic programme guides. Amendment No. 315 refers to information in a generic sense. I understand that many people are not aware of the services available and do not find the information provided accessible. In 1999, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People carried out research that showed that 1.7 million people aged over 55 with hearing loss do not know how to access closed-caption subtitles, and more than half a million would use them if they knew how to access them. We want the Bill to require that information about access to such services be made readily available.

Michael Fabricant: Is that not especially relevant now that, on digital television sets, such services involve no extra cost? Previously one had to pay more for a teletext set. All digital television receivers will have access to subtitling and other such facilities as an integral part of the system.

Richard Allan: It is helpful to refer to the transfer to digital technology. As the hon. Gentleman says, it will make more services available. However, the additional complexity of the new technology might make it less accessible to individuals who struggle with new
 technology. That is a legitimate issue for us to examine. There is no point in adding a new raft of services if people, when they are confronted by the various buttons that must be clicked to get to the options, find the process so daunting that they cannot get through it. Amendment No. 315 would add a requirement to the Bill in that respect.
 Amendment No. 316 deals with the ''how quickly'' question. We seek to test the 10-year limit that the Government have included and replace it with a fifth anniversary for the targets in the subsequent subsection. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) has just referred to the growth of digital television. Digital television targets tell us that we are entering a phase of rapid change. We are trying to ensure that the transition to more accessible services takes place sooner rather than later, so that those services are in place before the platforms have been entirely rolled out—it might prove more difficult more difficult to do that if it is left until later. There is no reason to wait 10 years to meet the targets that have been set. Those targets should be built into the transition to digital technology. 
 Amendment No. 314 looks at the way in which the targets are judged according to a particular broadcaster's output. If consumers receive a package of channels, targets should be set across that package rather than judged on each individual channel. We are looking for a different way to set the targets, so that when the broadcaster is deemed to be financially capable of introducing subtitling and the other additional accessibility measures, it should be judged on the entire package. The broadcaster should not be able to claim exemptions in respect of individual channels by saying that it cannot afford to do the additional work for them. 
 We recognise that the overall costs are significant—[Interruption.]

Peter Atkinson: Order. The Committee is suspended for 15 minutes.
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming—

Richard Allan: There are economic costs involved in the amendments, and I am mindful of them, but I think that the subject genuinely needs public debate. We are not talking about spending revenue from income tax or anything like that, but about the total cost of providing broadcast services. Appropriately enough, given the Government targets that many broadcasters have already taken on board—voluntarily, to their credit—part of those costs would go towards providing services to many of the broadcasters' viewers and listeners who require the additional services. We do not think that the cost is of itself a good enough reason not to try to press ahead more quickly.
 Amendment No. 313 was tabled so that we could try to tease out why we have such a low target for 
 audiodescription. We have touched on the issue several times, and the Minister has pointed to the fact that the market for audiodescription devices is undeveloped. However, we suggest that there is a chicken-and-egg problem, as until the services have been broadcast as audiodescription, there is no incentive to develop products in the marketplace that will allow the services to be listened to. We suggest that setting in stone in the Bill targets as low as 10 per cent. will further depress the market for audiodescription devices. If that market is to flourish, we need to be more ambitious about the number of programmes broadcast with that additional facility.

John Whittingdale: The hon. Gentleman acknowledges that the amendments carry a cost. Does he recognise that audiodescription is estimated to cost some £700 an hour? Working on the basis of 184 channels, the provisions already in the Bill will cost about £38.4 million after 10 years, and the hon. Gentleman's amendments would increase that to £192 million, which is a huge amount. Although channels that enjoy huge revenues, such as the BBC, might be able to meet that cost, the extra burden on small digital niche channels—if the hon. Gentleman's amendments also applied to them—might well make them no longer viable.

Richard Allan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the figures, which I had already received in a briefing from people with an interest in the satellite and cable broadcast industry. I recognise the costs involved and I am not trying to shirk them, but there are genuine grounds for public debate on the extent to which we, as consumers of services, are prepared to pay for the additional services that some consumers need. That is a valid debate. It may be that the appropriate balance lies somewhere between the provisions of the Bill and my amendment. No one suggests that very small broadcasters should be required to take on board costs that would mean going out of business. I am suggesting that the Bill should be more ambitious, which is the view taken by such bodies as the Royal National Institute of the Blind, although it does not want smaller broadcasters to be put out of business.
 New clause 27 relates to the public teletext service. The service provided in digital form should be accessible by people who are blind or partially sighted. We have a genuine fear that as we develop more complex technology for teletext services with richer contents, the service provided for users may go backwards—that is one of the perils of technology. We fear that deaf-blind people, who benefit most from teletext services that can translated through Braille type to readable form, are among those who might be left out unless a provision covering that is in the Bill. It is a challenge for deaf-blind people to access teletext, because it cannot be read out. They need an input or interface into the teletext so that it is provided in a form that they can use—typically, Braille. A requirement in the Bill for the development of new teletext services to include a consideration of accessibility for such people would be helpful. 
 We want to push the Government further. The 10-year targets could be more rigorous. They were introduced under the Broadcasting Act 1996 and there is a risk that we are setting the time scale further back than was envisaged at that time. If the Bill does not come into force until later this year and Ofcom does not get going until next year, some services will not have to meet targets until the middle of the next decade. We should be more ambitious and try to meet the targets sooner. 
 If the Minister cannot accept the amendments and the new clauses, I hope that he will state that the Government intend to act decisively and that he wants Ofcom to push hard. If he thinks that higher targets are desirable, if not that they should be mandatory, I hope that he will assure us that Ofcom will give every encouragement and support for the targets to be exceeded, especially when new technological methods provide new forms of access, such as those of Sky Digital, which has voluntarily demonstrated that its technology can do much. 
 There is a question about the way in which access devices work. I hope that the Minister will assure us that Ofcom will take seriously the provision of the second audio channel for digital terrestrial television set-top boxes, because that is the critical element of the ability to provide closed audio services. The problem is that we have tended to do everything on the cheap, which is right because we want stuff to get out to the market. There are, however, other technological solutions that would work, and I hope that we can push in that direction.

Kim Howells: The hon. Gentleman will know that companies such as Nokia have made boxes with the extra capabilities. I am sure that we can explore those avenues further.

Richard Allan: I am grateful for that positive intervention. I was thinking about that because although the main digital terrestrial television provider is not strictly in the public sector, it contains a large amount of public involvement in the form of the BBC. We are in now a different climate than that of the subscription digital terrestrial television provider, which for commercial reasons wanted to get out boxes as cheaply as possible. There is now stronger public sector involvement and a free-to-air offering. As the Minister said, we can try to ensure that solutions devised by such companies as Nokia get out whenever possible, so that the installed base can take advantage of new services. There is no point in our developing new services unless people have the equipment to take advantage of them. I am sure that the Minister has plenty to say in response to such a large group of amendments.

Kim Howells: We have had several debates on these issues. I am sure that the Committee is aware that the Government feel strongly that people with sensory impairments should benefit from improved access to television services. That access can be enhanced greatly through the provision of subtitling, signing and audiodescription.
 Clause 293 gives Ofcom a duty to draw up a code relating to provisions for deaf and visually impaired people. The code will give guidance on the extent to which the services that come under the clause should promote understanding and enjoyment by persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, or blind or partially sighted, and the means by which such understanding and enjoyment should be promoted. 
 In maintaining the code, Ofcom is required to review and revise it ''from time to time'', following the consultation procedure outlined in clause 294. In that respect, I might have a few answers to some of the questions posed by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan). Amendment No. 285, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), would require Ofcom to undertake such a review and revise the code at least once every three years, regardless of whether that was necessary. Although three years seems a reasonable period, it has been plucked out of the air. Under the clause as drafted, we expect Ofcom to undertake such a review and make appropriate revisions only when it considers that they are necessary, having regard to the requirement that it must be done ''from time to time''. 
 I understand the insistence of the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford on regularity. When we discussed audiodescription models, I was shocked to learn how long it had been since a coherent approach to such issues had been taken by the Government. That was partly because many people as well as manufacturers had been involved in audiodescription models, although a group of very good people within Government were trying to develop such matters. Nevertheless it is important that Ofcom understands that it has a duty to review and revise the code regularly. 
 I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that to carry out a review at least every three years would be a time-consuming and resource-intensive task. It should be left to Ofcom's judgment to undertake a review when necessary, based on its experience of the implementation of the code. The amendment would pre-judge the frequency of reviews. It is not necessary to be so prescriptive, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Brian White: We have seen the report of Competition Commission on mobile phones. One of the fears about Ofcom concentrating on key economic issues is that the matter that we are discussing might drop off the bottom of its list of priorities. Will the Minister assure us that that will not happen?

Kim Howells: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We have insisted throughout the Bill that Ofcom has such a duty. The issue is much more above the parapet now than it has ever been, and I expect Ofcom to react to it. I shall explain how we can be certain that it will act in such a way.
 Amendment No. 315, tabled by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam, would require Ofcom to ensure that the providers of services to which the clause applies give users information regarding the 
 availability and access to subtitling, signing and audiodescription. That is something for which Ofcom might, in principle, make provision in the code relating to provisions for the deaf and visually impaired. It would be a matter for Ofcom's discretion since, as the hon. Gentleman said, there is no specific requirement on it to do so in the Bill. A specific requirement in the code might prove to be no more than a formality in any event. The subtitling obligations that must be satisfied under the code are of benefit to people who are deaf, hard of hearing, blind or partially sighted. It is in the service provider's best interests to promote actively the availability of, and access to, subtitling, signing and audiodescription. 
 Amendment No. 316, which also stands in the name of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam, would require the targets for subtitling, signing and audiodescription to be met by the fifth anniversary of the relevant date—the dates vary—as opposed to the 10th anniversary of the relevant date as set out in subsection (2). Following the review of the statutory requirements for the provision of subtitling, sign language and audiodescription services, the report of which was published in January 2001, we believe that a 10-year period in which to satisfy the obligations is a challenging target—certainly in audiodescription services—but one that is nevertheless achievable. Given that enough targets have been set that are difficult to meet, I want this target to be achievable. It will also give those services with new obligations, such as cable and satellite broadcasters, sufficient time to plan for the introduction of such requirements. As a member of the committee that is considering analogue switch-off, I know that such matters require some planning. 
 Furthermore, the relevant dates under clause 295 in respect of which obligations for subtitling, signing and audio description are to be satisfied were considered using the 10th anniversary of the service. That means that the relevant date will, in some cases, be calculated from a much earlier date than when the clause comes into force. For the Channel Five service, which began before the date of the passing of this legislation, the relevant date is 1 January 1998, and the fifth anniversary of the relevant date will already have passed by the time the clause comes into force. I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I wanted to point that out to him. Ofcom will continue the role undertaken by the Independent Television Commission in setting interim targets based on the obligations in clause 293(3), so there should not be a void in the run-up to the date on which the targets finally take effect. I hope that what I have set out allays some of the hon. Gentleman's anxiety. 
 Amendment No. 313 would require 50 per cent. of programmes to be audiodescribed for the blind, whereas clause 293(3), which specifies the obligations that must be satisfied according to the code relating to provision for the deaf and visually impaired, states that at least 10 per cent. of programmes that are not excluded programmes should be audiodescribed for the blind. Following the review of the statutory 
 requirements for the provision of subtitling, signing and audiodescription services, we considered that the target for audiodescription should remain at its current level of at least 10 per cent. That decision recognised the unresolved production and distribution difficulties with the audiodescription modules needed to receive the service. 
 I give an undertaking to the Committee that I shall continue to do all that I can to move the matter forward, because it has been stalled for a long time. As the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford said, there is no easy way of disseminating the technology in the way that we would like. It is costly—he mentioned a figure of £129 million—and other modifications to existing law to afford disabled people access to other services might cost as much. That is a large sum for companies to carry at any time, without—I repeat—the proper market research and co-ordination having been carried out in respect of what should happen. I have been disappointed in that respect, although I have great admiration for the RNIB and other agencies.

Richard Allan: May I clarify the two issues we are trying to get at? First, I accept that audiodescriptive output is expensive and there is a debate about the extent to which that expense can be justified at any particular time. Secondly, however, making audiodescription available on equipment need not be expensive. The Sky Digital platform allows for that, even on the standard equipment. I hope that we can recognise that the equipment side can be pushed without putting huge costs on to the broadcasters. That is a different debate.

Kim Howells: That is a good point. I think it was the hon. Gentleman who said that great advances have been made in respect of DVDs. That should point the way in our consideration of the right of visually impaired people to enjoy films and so on like the rest of us. I ask the Committee to remember that the target for audiodescription should be kept under review and that it may be amended by order. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman some confidence.
 Amendment No. 314 would require Ofcom to take into account whether a programme is provided on a channel that is normally offered to consumers as a separate service, or as one of a number of channels that form part of a single service, when it considers the cost of providing the assistance for disabled people. It appears that the intention behind the amendment is that Ofcom should take account of the overall resources that are available to a broadcaster when it considers whether to exclude any of its channels on the basis of cost. 
 The code will set out the descriptions of programmes that Ofcom considers should be excluded from the requirements set out in subsection (3). Ofcom has the ability to exclude from the obligations set out in subsection (3) certain programmes relating to, or, in special cases, all programmes that are included in, different services to which the clause would apply. In excluding all of the programmes from the obligations in subsection (3), Ofcom must have regard, under subsection (6)(a) to (e), to a number of considerations, including the extent 
 of the benefit to the blind and visually impaired, the size of intended audience, the number of people who would be likely to benefit, the extent of the likely benefit, and the technical difficulty of providing the assistance. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam mentioned, there is something of a chicken-and-egg problem, but the provisions would ensure that Ofcom is aware of that problem and that it has the ability to deal with it. 
 I sympathise with the spirit of the amendment, but we believe that it would cause difficulties for two main reasons. First, the licence holder for the service in question would be obliged to provide assistance to disabled people, even if that service formed part of a family of channels. Second, it would be at best burdensome, and in many cases impossible, for Ofcom to investigate the detail of each channel's establishment and funding arrangements in order to determine whether exclusion was appropriate. In view of that, I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press the amendment. 
 Amendment No. 284, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford, would require Ofcom to publish at least once a year details of the extent to which every service to which the clause applies has met the targets on subtitling, audiodescription and sign language referred to in subsection (3). Clause 344(3)(b) already states that in carrying out its annual factual and statistical report, Ofcom must consider the extent to which codes made by Ofcom under this part of the Bill have been complied with during that period. I do not believe that a specific reference in the clause to Ofcom's reporting on the code in relation to deaf and visually impaired people is necessary and I hope that in view of that, the hon. Gentleman will have some confidence. 
 Amendment No. 243, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East, would require the code of practice for electronic programme guides to give such degree of prominence as Ofcom considers appropriate to the listing and promotion of programmes accompanied by aids to viewing, including subtitling, audiodescription and signing. We fully understand the need for consumers to know which programmes are accompanied by the aids to viewing that we have mentioned, but it is not appropriate or easy to give those programmes due prominence in the same way as can be done for programmes on public service channels. As has been said, there are difficulties, but it would be a useful feature if future electronic programme guides ensured that, when they list programmes broadcast on different channels, they flag up those with aids for visually or hearing-impaired people. 
 I assure my hon. Friend that the issue will be raised with my colleagues working on the digital action plan, because that is how the issue should properly be addressed. The first step is for stakeholders, representatives of broadcasters, consumer groups and manufacturers to develop and agree on a convenient system. The main problem will be ensuring that EPGs carry the appropriate information for each programme in the appropriate format. I would not describe the 
 current state of affairs as a mess but, as my hon. Friend says, there are some differences between systems that should be cleared up. 
 On my hon. Friend's amendment No. 244, there is no reason in principle why Ofcom could not include minimum requirements and best practice guidance in its code of practice on EPGs to ensure that they are accessible to the disabled in an appropriate form. However, that would be consistent with Ofcom's general duties under clause 3, which including having regard to the needs of people with disabilities. In line with our thinking on clause No. 293, we do not think that it is appropriate to prescribe in clause 299 every matter that could be covered by the code. I therefore do not believe that the amendment is necessary. 
 I am not sure whether we are also discussing new clause 15, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), as a Division has intervened since we were last told. 
Mr. Simon Thomas (Ceredigion) indicated assent.

Kim Howells: The hon. Gentleman is nodding his head, so I shall refer to new clause 15, under which Ofcom would be required to ensure that all digital platform providers made certain that that visually impaired viewers were consistently able to receive audiodescribed programmes. That is clearly beyond the scope of clause 293 and would involve imposing general conditions on communications providers. However, such conditions are not permitted under the authorisation directive. The permissible categories are set out in the annex to the directive, and do not cover audiodescription or anything specific to broadcasting. That sounds a bit technical, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider that point before pressing new clause 15 to a Division.
 I now come to new clause 27, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam. The public teletext service is a valued part of public service broadcasting. We are keen for visually impaired people to have access to the service. At present, they have access to the analogue public teletext service and other text services such as BBC Ceefax through talking teletext. There is equipment that uses a teletext decoder and a voice synthesiser to translate written teletext into audible speech. However, existing talking teletext equipment is not suitable for receiving digital teletext services. New clause 27 would require Ofcom to include appropriate conditions in the regulatory regime for the public teletext service licence for ensuring that the public teletext service provided in digital form was available to visually impaired persons. The new clause would place a new kind of obligation on the public teletext provider, with no certainty of how and at what cost the broadcaster might fulfil any condition imposed. 
 No additional capacity is available for teletext to expand its digital service. The full amount of the capacity that is reserved for the public teletext service on a digital terrestrial multiplex is required to simulcast the analogue public teletext service. We are not prepared to grant additional capacity for the public teletext service on digital as to do so would squeeze capacity for other service providers. 
 The current talking teletext service is not a broadcast service and is not dependent on any special provision for the public teletext service provider or any other analogue text provider. It depends on specialised receiving equipment. In principle, there is no reason why manufacturers cannot develop new digital equipment to provide a talking digital text service that makes use of digital teletext service transmissions. New equipment is needed in any case: existing talking teletext receivers have an analogue tuner, so equipment with a digital tuner would have to be developed.

Richard Allan: Ofcom will have a role in ensuring that that happens—that a digital teletext receiver that can translate teletext into sound or Braille is developed—but there is potential for dispute. If manufacturers cannot agree with teletext providers, someone will have to be able to intervene; otherwise, a group of people could lose their teletext service altogether.

Kim Howells: My faith in the market is well known to this Committee. In this country, 8.7 million people are reckoned to be deaf or hard of hearing and 1.7 million to be blind or partially sighted. That total of 1.7 million is the same as the population of Northern Ireland, and 8.7 million is a little bit more than the populations of Scotland and Wales put together. That is a big market—bigger than some European countries. I am therefore convinced that the market will develop quickly, in part as a consequence of the efforts of the hon. Gentleman all the other members of this Committee to raise awareness of the need to improve access and to develop the technology to allow that to happen.
 Equipment such as digital tuners will be developed. That solution will not depend on any action by teletext providers and will enable those with visual impairments to access all digital services. I therefore feel that the new clause is unnecessary. I ask the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam not to press it.

John Whittingdale: We have had a full debate. My amendment No. 285 is quite small. I accept the Minister's comment that three years, as specified in the amendment, is an arbitrary choice, but one sometimes has to pick arbitrary figures. However, I am reassured by the Minister's comments.
 The intervention by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East went to the heart of my amendment—and, indeed, of almost every other amendment on the amendment paper. Ofcom has so many different powers that there is a fear that some issues may fall off the bottom and not receive the attention that they deserve. Preventing that was the purpose of my amendment and, I suspect, of many of the other amendments. Can the Minister assure us that Ofcom will give due attention to this matter and that it would undertake a review if asked to do so by an organisation such as the RNID or RNIB?

Simon Thomas: I understand that there is an advisory committee on telecommunications that represents people with disabilities and gives advice on technical matters and other issues that affect the
 disabled community. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in the light of the Minister's comments, continuation of that advisory committee within Ofcom—either formally or informally—would be a useful way of reminding Ofcom of its duties under this clause? That might go some way towards alleviating concerns felt outside this Committee about the way in which Ofcom will concentrate on the needs of people with sensory impairments?

John Whittingdale: That might be a good way of dealing with the matter. I hope that Ofcom will talk regularly to the organisations—either formally through an advisory committee, or informally with groups representing disabled people—and that Ofcom will listen to them if they say that it is time to review the code. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 293 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 294 to 298 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 299 - Code of practice for electronic

Simon Thomas: I beg to move amendment No. 191, in
clause 299, page 258, line 35, at end insert— 
 '(2A) In Wales, due prominence means parity of access to the full range of S4C digital programmes.'.

Peter Atkinson: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 255, in 
clause 299, page 258, leave out lines 38 and 39 and insert— 
 '(a) those television programme services known as BBC1 and BBC2 provided by the BBC in digital form.'.

Simon Thomas: This is a probing amendment. The clause puts an emphasis on digital programme guides giving due prominence to public service broadcasts. In the Welsh context, S4C is such a public service broadcaster. In most cases, pressing button 1 will switch to BBC 1, and people more or less know what programmes to expect if they press buttons 2 and 3 on most digital programme guides, but after that it starts to get a bit murky. In England, button 4 will usually automatically switch to Channel 4, but in Wales it could result in S4C, with Channel 4 being located somewhere else. Button 5 will probably be for Channel Five, but after that we start to go into realms where people fear to tread. I want to know how the ''due prominence'' of S4C in Wales as a public service broadcaster will be protected.
 I shall give a brief example. I am given to understand that one has to key in 752 to receive S4C on NTL in Cardiff and south Wales, but, to be honest, I would expect to receive something like al-Jazeera with a number like that. I would not expect S4C in Wales to be located on 752; I would expect it to be given more prominence. The amendment is designed to ensure that in a fully digital age the clause will be sufficiently robust to allow S4C to be located where the majority, if not everyone, can find it easily and not 
 get mixed up between the Welsh-language version and other language versions.

John Greenway: Having visited S4C in Wales last year, I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point. I am given to understand that although EPGs are limited by technology, some false premises are being made. When the guide is switched to sport, it will not necessarily say what sport is being shown on the more prominently listed channels. Equally, when switched to children's programmes, it will not necessarily say what is being broadcast on the children's television programmes. I do not know whether that can be solved by new technology—I am not a technocrat in any way, shape or form. In fact, in many respects I am quite the opposite, which is why I still rent my telephone from BT. I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's argument about what happens in Wales, and I hope that the Minister has taken favourable note of it.
 Amendment No. 255 deals with a different matter. It would limit the definition of public broadcast service to which prominence should be applied in the electronic programme guide to BBC 1 and BBC 2, not BBC digital channels. The Minister and Ofcom need to grasp an important point. Some of our earlier debates were characterised by the concern that the all-powerful BBC made life difficult for some commercial channels. For example, mainly through the licence fee, the BBC has invested in a channel that competes with a channel that is having to fight commercially and is purely available on digital format—in other words, it is not available on the terrestrial network. The satellite and cable broadcasters group drew attention to two examples that could be a problem, the first of which concerns the Disney Channel. 
 Among many excellent pieces in the Westminster Media Forum booklet to which I referred the other day is one by Paul Robinson, the managing director of the Disney Channel in the United Kingdom. He said: 
''We are concerned that the definition of public service broadcasting has been widened''
 under subsection (3) 
''to include any service or television programmes provided by the BBC in digital form . . . Given existing service provision by commercially funded channels, to permit public service broadcasters to move into genres already fully provided by the market, and to favour them with preferential EPG positioning, is both inappropriate and market distorting. In the children's broadcasting arena the market was already supporting 14 seven days-a-week full service channels prior to entry by the BBC with services that lack distinctiveness''.
 The Bill insists that all BBC digital channels should be given prominence and that will make life more difficult, if not impossible, for the other channels, which have been encouraged into existence by public policy. There will be a conflict of policy.

Michael Fabricant: The other practical point is that there needs to be some sense of order in the way in which the EPG is presented. Surely there is logic in having the news channels, such as BBC News 24, Sky News, Fox News and ITV Network News, grouped together for ease of operation of the EPG. Under the clause, BBC News 24 would be at the beginning and
 separate from the other news channels. That is one example of a genre.

Chris Bryant: No.

John Greenway: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is right. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield is right, however, in that BBC News 24 is a BBC channel. Hopefully, the hon. Gentleman can put us straight.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman should read the clause. It states that the channels will only be given
''such degree of prominence as OFCOM consider appropriate''.
 There is no guarantee that the BBC channels would be listed 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Many of those places are already taken. Surely all licence fee services that are provided on the basis of a form of taxation should be clearly findable by the average member of the public. There should also be a distinction between those channels and other BBC channels, such as UK Gold, which should not have such prominence.

John Greenway: The hon. Gentleman has let the cat out of the bag on two counts. I hope that his view is not shared by the Minister. First, if the intention is not to put the other BBC channels at the top of the list on the first page of the EPG, why not accept our amendment? Why give Ofcom the opportunity to do that?

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Greenway: No. We do not want to dwell on it, but it is an important point. The hon. Gentleman is saying that Ofcom need not take such action, but how do we know whether it will or will not? If our amendment were accepted, the first page of the EPG on Sky would remain as it is now: BBC 1, BBC 2, Channel 3 and Channel 4. The other channels might suddenly find that Ofcom implements the provision and we end up with all the BBC channels listed first, followed by all the rest. The channels that are competing with them would be at a disadvantage.
 As for how the hon. Gentleman let the cat out of the bag a second time—

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Greenway: No. I want to answer the hon. Gentleman before I accept any more interventions. He said that the fact that channels are paid for by public money means that they should be given greater priority than channels that are paid for by commercial broadcasters. I part company with him on that point. The broadcasting ecology in this country has a good mix of publicly funded broadcasts through the BBC and commercially funded broadcasts through Channels 3, 4 and Five, BSkyB, and the other channels that use cable, satellite and terrestrially delivered digital platforms to reach their audience. I am not in the business of arguing that one is greater or lesser than the other. Each channel should have equal opportunity of success.
 I shall finish my remarks by citing another example. Why should BBC 4 be given greater potential prominence on an EPG than Artsworld? I have not been lobbied by Sir Jeremy Isaacs, but it speaks for itself that a laudable channel, which will always face 
 an uphill struggle financially, should be given a fair chance. I rest my case—[Interruption.].

Peter Atkinson: Order. I suspend the Committee for 15 minutes.
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming—

Huw Irranca-Davies: I shall talk briefly about suitable measures to protect the virtue of some of the more vulnerable and precious members of our broadcasting family, and about how we can give them the respect and high profile that they deserve. In coming years, the regulation of EPGs will be a key issue in broadcasting. EPGs will become more and more powerful. Drawing up screens and channel hopping will be the ways in which the average user selects from a vast menu of options.
 We want to probe the Minister about how he will ensure that codes of conduct are strong enough to protect the positions of not only the large and the powerful but the smaller, more vulnerable broadcasters such as S4C. The channel number on an EPG is crucial if people are to gain access to the universe of programmes offered by broadcasters, particularly smaller broadcasters such as S4C. The smaller broadcasters do not have the same marketing or promotional budgets as the big ones, so it is vital that their profile has a prominence that gives ease of access by channel hoppers. 
 NTL, the prominent cable operator in south Wales, demonstrates how an EPG provider can make channels such as S4C invisible even to their key audiences. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion pointed out, NTL has placed S4C on channel 752; to gain access to the programme on cable, one has to scroll through 14 screens and press the button 98 times. The most ardent channel hopper will give up—except the most committed, because S4C is after the God Channel, between Zee TV and the Playboy Channel, and just before the Fantasy Channel.

Kim Howells: That is fascinating—I never got that far. However, it would be a lot easier for committed channel hoppers to learn the number. That is the short cut. That is what my kids do all the time—they never use EPGs, they just press the numbers.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank the Minister, but I suspect that different people access programmes differently. Some go to the extent of memorising the numbers of their favourite channels, whereas others, including children, sit down and flick and flick through the channels. Not everybody will learn the numbers.

Simon Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman not share my concern that if one scrolls through the electronic programme guide by subject for children's services, S4C's ''Planed Plant'' programme cannot be seen. It is available only by learning the number. I heard what the Minister said, but I wonder whether he would be
 happy if BBC 1 or BBC 2 were to be to be found on channel 739. I think not.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. It is a classic case of profiling and marketing. The success of companies, especially smaller ones, is owed to being out in front and not having to go through hoops or rely on people memorising their numbers; they are in front of the consumer at all times. The children's programme ''Planed Plant'' is indicative of the problem, but I shall return to that in a moment.
 S4C's apparent invisibility is also indicated in the special NTL edition of the Radio Times, which lists 33 digital channels, from BBC 4 to Animal Planet, Discovery, SciTrek and even Adventure 1. It also lists the regions—the Granada, Yorkshire, Tyne Tees and Carlton televisions companies—one by one. However, there is no mention of S4C. Although the clause does not deal directly with that aspect, S4C can be made invisible also to the mainstream programmers and to the national newspapers, such as the Daily Mail, which publish programme guides. I am gently pushing the Minister to say how we can protect the status of relatively vulnerable broadcasters such as S4C.

John Whittingdale: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Is S4C not mentioned in the Welsh edition of the Radio Times?

Huw Irranca-Davies: That is right; we would expect to see S4C, if not in a prominent position, at least somewhere in the Cardiff edition of the Radio Times.
 In short, we should avoid any suggestion that we are performing alongside Sid James in ''Carry on the Communications Bill''. Does the Minister feel that any decent, respectable, upstanding public service broadcaster, such as S4C, should be rudely placed next to two channels of comparatively easy virtue such as the Playboy channel and the Fantasy channel? That gives a strange and hardly appropriate connotation to the phrase ''due prominence''—[Laughter.] 
 There are also problems relating to genres. S4C has a clearly identifiable product, well known and highly respected among Welsh speakers and in the Welsh-learning context, known as ''Planed Plant''. Some brilliant programming is done for it, yet it cannot be found in the children's section of the EPG. A vast and wonderful menu of channels to choose from is available, yet the Welsh language option is not included. There might be technical reasons for that, but I ask for some words of encouragement from the Minister. Does he think that that is appropriate due prominence, in the context of the clause?

Chris Bryant: Following the comments of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), it is important to point out that, in the next 10 to 15 years, electronic programme guides will probably alter people's viewing habits more than any other aspect of the digital revolution in broadcasting. Contrary, I am afraid, to what my hon. Friend the Minister said earlier, it has been shown in every investigation into the matter that the vast majority of people do not learn the numbers. They surf through television channels either by going
 to the genre section—the news, documentary, children's or whatever section—and choose from the list presented there. That is more of a problem for channels that are not genre-based and leads to the problem that has already been described as affecting S4C whereby, because it covers every genre, it is more difficult for individual programming areas or chunks of the day to be seen.
 Something else that can be used, especially on the Sky EPG—although I do not think that it is available yet on most cable EPGs—is a facility for designating certain channels as favourites. People can make the box learn the channel numbers for them, so to speak. At the moment only five favourites are possible on the Sky EPG, but it would be good to be able to create more. It might be possible to establish the facility for S4C in Wales or, indeed, for use by Welsh speakers living elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

John Whittingdale: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I must confess that I am a surfer. Channels start up almost every day—I discovered last weekend something called Avago and also E!, which I think has only just arrived on the scene. Such channels will probably only ever be found by people who surf, because they do not have the money to promote a great launch. Surfing is part of the exploration of this new world that we are entering.

Chris Bryant: I agree, and undoubtedly among the buttons that people use most frequently are ''programme up'' and ''programme down''. As electronic programme guides are at present, the location of a channel in the listings is vital to its success or failure. However, EPGs will change: it is fairly certain that in 10 years' time we will have not linear channel EPGs, but something much more akin to a genre EPG that helps viewers to find programmes rather than channels.
 That is why the clause is so important. It does not actually use the phrase ''due prominence'', but 
''such degree of prominence as OFCOM consider appropriate'',
 which is a fairly broad term. The clause is important if we are to make sure that certain programmes or channels—depending on the way in which people want to approach their television viewing—will not be rendered invisible by the electronic programme guide. It is certainly possible for the people who have control of the EPGs to make certain forums invisible. That already happens in some ways with the TiVo box and similar devices in which the electronic programme guide is built into a system in which the metadata are assessed as they come into the box; it decides what programmes one likes to watch, reminds one when they are coming on and records them without one having decided to record it. 
 The electronic programme guide is potentially an important gateway through which broadcasters must find their viewers, and vice versa. Viewers must pass through it to get to the channels that they want to watch—but only if they know that those channels exist. I am worried that public service broadcasting channels—both those that are funded from the licence fee and those that are funded from the benefits that accrue through the licensing process—will suffer from 
 being hidden in the EPG process. That is not to say that I want to see all the BBC channels listed as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and BBC News 24 being channel 24, but there are ways of ensuring that they have due prominence. 
 It makes sense, for example, for the BBC children's channels to be in the ''children's'' area, rather than relegated to channel 898. It also makes sense for BBC News 24 to be in the news section—when it was originally discussed, Sky talked about making it channel 752. In Wales, the channel 104 place on the Sky EPG is taken by S4C, and Channel 4 is on 184; that seems to provide due prominence to both of those channels, because 184 is a readily remembered number. A suitable solution in England would be to have the obverse of the position in Wales and put S4C on number 184, because that includes the number 4 and is just a little bit different from 104. 
 The clause is vital if we are to ensure that there is open access for viewers and listeners. It is also important that we do not get carried away with the style of the Opposition amendment, which would limit the provisions merely to BBC 1 and 2, because we are talking about only 
''such a degree of prominence as Ofcom consider appropriate.''
 That is not too much to ask on behalf of viewers and listeners.

Brian White: My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) has made some points that I would have made, so I will not repeat them. I had the misfortune to see Connacht get stuffed while watching S4C at the weekend, but at least I learned how to spell ''rugby'' in Welsh.
 My hon. Friend said that technology is changing, which is a key issue. We must recognise that the type of EPG that we have at the moment is not necessarily the one that we will have in future. Ofcom must ensure that as changes happen in EPGs, the due prominence given to public service broadcasters, especially multi-genre channels, is not lost. It is important that if a channel, especially a small niche channel, has more than one genre, it is reflected in the EPG. 
 It is also important, as my hon. Friend mentioned, that new entrants are not unduly relegated to the bottom of the EPG. The place of channels on the EPG could determine their chance of success. That is a key issue. In the past, Sky has changed the EPG numbers of its channels. Ofcom must consider the issue of changing EPG numbers and it must ensure that where due prominence is given to some public service broadcasting, relevant changes—or other changes that have been made—do not affect that. 
 Finally, I shall mention the issue of bundled packages versus pay TV pay-to-subscribe TV and Freeview. It is a question of Sky Sports versus the Football League's 433 channel versus Eurosport, which is free. It is crucial that Ofcom bears the balances in mind when considering where the channels appear on the on the EPG. I ask the Minister to consider not merely the points arising from the amendment, but the issues raised by changes in technology.

Richard Allan: The issues surrounding EPGs have become more complex irrespective of whether we accept that due prominence relates to BBC programmes or to a wider set of public service channels. Listening to the hon. Member for Rhondda, I was struck by how important the change in electronic programme guides will be. In clause 70, if anyone can remember it, we implemented, quite properly, European Union directives that require open access to the application programme interfaces on electronic programme guides. The logic of that change is that in the EPG, the one-to-one association between, for example, satellite digital television and the Sky EPG, will be broken. We will see a range of electronic programme guides that people will choose to access the channels that they want on their platform.
 To return to S4C, which I realise is a sensitive issue, one can imagine members of the public who live in Welsh language-speaking homes wanting a form of electronic programme guide that gives all the top positions to all the Welsh-language channels. They will not want BBC 1 to Channel 4 at the top of their electronic programme guide, but will prefer the Welsh electronic programme guide, which gives due prominence to their channels. 
 For that to work, we are talking about almost two different things. We could have a whole series of electronic programme guides that people customise themselves, in which case we cannot expect Ofcom to go into people's homes to ask them ''Are you sticking to the code of practice? We see that you have programmed your favourite so that BBC 1 is no longer at the top.'' We do not want to go down that road. At the same time, however, we should regulate the lazy person's EPG—the default one that is shipped and that is not altered. That one needs to be regulated. I am not sure that the Bill as it stands is clear enough about what we are trying to regulate. 
 There can be two types of EPG: the default platform EPG and the set of custom EPGs. The hon. Member for Rhondda is right to point out that they are with us now in the form of TiVo, which is an example of computer technology and television technology. Increasingly, the customised form is what people will want as the two technologies are brought together. They will want their own EPGs not to be regulated by Ofcom.

Kim Howells: For a probing amendment, that was quite a debate. EPGs are a major feature of digital television. It is easy to choose your evening programmes when you have five channels, but when you have dozens or hundreds of channels, you need a much more appropriate tool than the zapper button on your remote control. However, an EPG can become a gatekeeper, and we must ensure that the public service channels are easily available on the guides. Technology is moving so fast that we cannot anticipate all the forms that an EPG might take, nor can we anticipate all the issues that may arise, although we have heard quite a few of them this afternoon. That is why we gave Ofcom appropriate powers and the necessary flexibility to regulate EPGs
 on all platforms. That point was made very well by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda.
 Ofcom will be under a duty to draw up and to revise from time to time a code that gives guidance on the practices to be followed in providing EPGs, and in particular on due prominence for public service broadcast channels. BBC News 24 is listed, as the hon. Member for Ryedale pointed out, with news channels. However, due prominence does not necessarily mean that it should be in first place. That helps, but it is not necessarily an unbreakable rule. Ofcom will determine what due prominence means, taking into account the audience share and the commercial benefit for the platform. 
 Several sittings ago, the hon. Member for Lichfield pointed out the way in which programmes are listed in newspapers and in the Radio Times. That has hardly varied over the course of many years: BBC 1 is shown on the left, either ITV or BBC 2 is in the centre, and Channel 4 and Channel 5 follow. That is where the format becomes irritating because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) said, in a Welsh paper S4C will have an equally prominent listing, usually down the right hand side of the page, while in papers that are not necessarily concerned about their sales in Wales there will be a little square at the bottom, somewhere below some of the Sky sports channels. That is a problem, but it is accepted as a fact of life. Perhaps we should talk about that.

Chris Bryant: Oddly, though, one rarely sees the S4C digital listing. There is just the S4C listing, and they are completely different.

Kim Howells: That is perfectly true. I have never had a problem locating S4C—perhaps because I have Sky—nor has it been a problem for my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East, who watched Pontypridd slamming Connacht last Saturday evening.

Simon Thomas: The Minister referred to the conditions that Ofcom would consider in deciding where due prominence would be. He mentioned audience share and the benefits of the platform.

Kim Howells: I did not say that.

Simon Thomas: I thought that he did, so I shall give him the opportunity to clarify what I heard. I also want to ask whether Ofcom would consider the public service remit of the broadcaster in deciding its prominence on the page.

Kim Howells: I did talk about the role that should be played by public service broadcasters. I did not mention audience or any of the other issues that the hon. Gentleman imagined. I was probably mumbling—we do that in Aberdare.
 Ofcom will determine what constitutes due prominence. We expect that it will take into account not only the number and place of the channel on the EPG, but the genre under which the channel is listed and its neighbours. Let me tell the Committee how I manage. I am just about bright enough to find the right genre and I can sometimes remember the numbers, but as soon as something comes on that I do not want to see, I scroll up or down. If I am 
 watching a movie, there are likely to be other movies in that section. The same applies to sport or news programmes and so on. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to do that; it is much easier than pressing 95 numbers. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore spoke about invisibility and small channels' access to the EPG. Under clause 70, all channels have to be given access to the EPG on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda pointed out—so, indirectly, did the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam, who described the ways in which the technology might advance—to try to fix those in the Bill would be a mistake. We do not anticipate big changes, but those that happen will happen a lot faster than we expect. I take the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore that it can be infuriating if one cannot find services and channels that one needs. 
 The rationale for giving public service channels due prominence on an EPG, which the hon. Member for Ryedale mentioned, relates to our objective of ensuring universal access to a choice of diverse services of the highest quality and easy access to communications services, free at the point of delivery. 
 Amendment No. 191 seeks to give the benefit of due prominence on EPGs in Wales to all the programmes provided by the Welsh authority and not only to S4C digital. I agree that the listing position given on an EPG is an important element in attracting an audience. With no EPG listing, broadcasters are unlikely to attract significant numbers of viewers, because they might not be aware of the services available, although the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford pointed out that habitual scrollers like him stumble across channels that can, and have, become cult channels. Although we talked about the different technologies that might emerge for EPGs, that represents a different habit that people will have. I suspect that people will be able to work with 100 and more channels—perhaps they will watch channels discovered by the hon. Gentleman. He could set himself up as a company to pass on word-of-mouth advice on such matters. 
 It is important for S4C digital that viewers have easy access to that channel irrespective of where they are in the United Kingdom. I do not believe that S4C digital should be prominent only in Wales, which the amendment suggests. It is good that the channel has been given channel 104—fourth place—on the Sky EPG in Wales, but it is also fair that because the channel is a public service and publicly funded, the Bill will ensure that it has a duly prominent place on EPGs outside Wales. If a new service is provided by the Welsh authority under clause 200, the Secretary of State may add it, under clause 299(4), to the list of channels benefiting from due prominence. That is an important consideration. 
 I understand that the public service channels are concerned that kids programmes available on BBC 1, ITV or S4C will not appear under the ''kids'' listing. Our debate has made it clear that EPG technology is not yet fully matured, but it is developing. Broadcasters and manufacturers are working 
 together to improve it. At present, EPGs list services by types of channels, not by genres of programmes. That will have to be addressed, as several hon. Members have said, and we will ensure that it is given due prominence in any future considerations. The situation might well change with new techniques, but clause 299 is sufficiently flexible to allow Ofcom to amend the code in order to take any improvements into account.

John Greenway: Has the Minister sat down?

Kim Howells: No, I meant to say more, but my knee gave way—[Laughter.]

John Greenway: I am grateful to the Minister for suddenly finding an old rugby injury.
 The Minister was very persuasive. In fact, what he said conforms to what I said at the beginning of my remarks, that there is a case for trying to ensure that the listings are in a better shape than at present, although we understand that there are technological difficulties. With respect, however, I do not think that he has made a case for why all BBC digital services—not only BBC 1 and BBC 2—should be included in the list of public service channels. There is a danger that those channels will be given greater prominence than other commercial digital channels that compete against them.

Kim Howells: I shall try to explain why I oppose amendment No. 255 on the grounds that the hon. Gentleman explained. The BBC provides more digital services than only BBC 1 and BBC 2. That is a good thing, and the 10 million viewers who have switched to digital have welcomed it. CBBC, CBeebies, BBC 3, BBC 4 and even BBC Parliament are public service channels that must have due prominence on the EPGs. My problem with the amendment is that I see no reason to limit the benefit to BBC 1 and BBC 2. I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I believe that the clause will give Ofcom the right amount of flexibility and room for judgment to allow it to make the right decisions.

Simon Thomas: I am pleased that we have had the debate, which has allowed the Minister to clarify the thinking behind the clause. Importantly, he said that the Government believed that Ofcom should take channels' public service remit into account more than—I insist that the record will show that he strayed into this territory—audience share and platform benefit. He pulled himself out of the hole by returning to the public sector remit. In moving the amendment, I said that it was intended to probe the issue, and I am pleased that we have had an opportunity to do so.
 I should put on record that S4C has faced these issues before. When it was set up—this was mentioned in recent editions of the Radio Times—it could not get its listings published in the Radio Times or the TV Times, which were the only TV listings magazines available at the time; nor could it get them published in the main newspapers, even in a small box. In fact, it had to produce its own newspaper, which was later carried in The Western Mail and eventually became the supplement that we get every Saturday. The paper originated from S4C's need to publish its listings, and 
 we have sought to explore the clause so that a similar burden is not imposed on small broadcasters. We should bear that in mind. 
 We should bear in mind the issues that we have discussed, although we should avoid any definition of S4C as ''Sex 4 Cymru'' rather than Sianel Pedwar Cymru. None the less, we have explored the issues, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Kim Howells: I beg to move amendment No. 271, in
clause 299, page 259, line 18, leave out subsection (7).
 The clause requires Ofcom to draw up and, from time to time, update and review a code of practice on electronic programme guides. The code should include guidance on giving due prominence to public service channels, and subsection (3) lists the services to be included for the time being. Those might be changed by order. Subsection (7) defines the term ''text service'' as having the same meaning as in clause 226, but clause 299 no longer refers to text services. As the definition is superfluous, the amendment removes it. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Clause 299, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 300 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 301 - Character and coverage of sound

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Robertson: I said earlier that I would return to the subject of music, and I have now had a discussion with the Music Business Forum. I hope to be able to address clause 302 in my remarks on clause 301.
 Music and radio are inextricably linked in the public mind. Changes to policy and ownership rules, criteria for licences, and the terms of licences can have a fundamental impact on the music that is heard on the radio, as well as on music creators and the wider music industry. Crucially, local radio stations can, and do, provide a boost to local bands. They can also improve awareness of the local live music scene. Where else can we see new talent these days—aside from on programmes such as ''Pop Idol'' and those about put-together electronic bands? 
 In the light of the Government's recent decision further to deregulate ownership at local level—to move to two commercial operators plus one public service broadcaster—the Bill must make it clear that the broadcast of local material should not only cover news and programmes, but clearly refer to music in its own right, whether it is in or around other programming. That would ensure that local musicians at least had a chance of having their music heard. 
 Deregulation and the move to ''two plus one'' at local level mean that the Bill is likely to trigger a 
 further wave of consolidation in radio ownership. Small stations that were awarded radio licences could find themselves under significant commercial pressure to sell out to larger groups. If that happened, any commitments on the local character of music would risk being lost—even if those commitments had been a condition of the original licence. If a station is awarded a licence on the basis of undertakings on the character of the music that it will play, it should not be able to go back on those undertakings unless the Ofcom content board gives specific permission. Otherwise, changes may be made that do not take the original commitments into account, and licence terms may run for several years during which the station moves away from a diverse and local music policy towards a centralised programming mainstream. I ask the Minister to consider that possibility. 
 Clause 301 relates to licensing. Music plays a central part in the application for many radio licences. Diversity of service results from careful consideration of a range of applications—that is an important part of the approval process. In order to avoid the diminishing of diversity, especially of music programmes, because of the pressure from programme suppliers for mid-term changes to licences, conditions should be tightened—that is, the conditions that an applicant must meet in order to secure Ofcom's approval to mid-term changes in the character of a programme's service. 
 As the Bill stands, it could be held that Ofcom could approve a change to the character of a service in the mid-term of the licence if it was satisfied that one of the conditions was met. That may have the effect of allowing owners to diminish the range and diversity of programming that the original programme licence application had promised to provide.

Eric Joyce: I can sympathise with small companies not wishing to be taken over by larger ones. However, media organisations such as the Scottish Media Group still require a certain critical mass so that they can avoid being taken over by even larger, perhaps global, entities. What is my hon. Friend's view on that?

John Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for his input, but my point is that if there are three criteria and one remains the same while the other two change, the whole character of a radio station could change. I am especially interested in music, but the broadcasting of local music played by local bands in Scotland, Wales, the north of England or Cornwall, all of which have their own musical identities, could be lost, because a station could argue that the criterion was still being met, because what it was playing was still music.
 If we say that all the conditions have to be considered before any changes can be approved, we offer an additional level of protection. That is not to say that changes could not be approved, but all the conditions would have to be considered together, rather than one being considered in isolation. To avoid the diversity of music being diminished through mid-term changes to licences, Ofcom should surely be 
 required to take account of the diversity of music as well as the diversity of other programming. Those things go hand in hand.

Kim Howells: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) has raised those important points. Ofcom can agree to a departure from the character of a national or local service if and only if the departure would not substantially alter the character of the service and narrow the range of programmes available. For local licences, the departure must be conducive to maintaining or promoting fair competition, and there must be evidence of significant local support for the change.
 This is meant to be a deregulatory piece of legislation and we do not wish to be over-prescriptive in dictating how Ofcom and the industry should draw up a localness code. The clause does not rule out local music, but it will be up to Ofcom to decide whether it wants to include it. No doubt, Ofcom will wish to consult the music industry, and I expect it to do so when drawing up the code. I imagine that the best and most imaginative of our radio station owners would understand the commercial attraction of giving playtime to local fans who have recorded something, or giving a platform on which local bands, musicians and singers can perform. That happens on some of our local radio stations. It is an important matter to take into consideration.

Chris Bryant: A friend from Halifax sent me an e-mail today saying that he was a little worried that he would only ever be able to listen to Jive Bunny. How would my hon. Friend respond to him?

Kim Howells: I cannot react to that—

Chris Bryant: You would have to listen to Tom Jones.

Andrew Robathan: He does. [Laughter.]

Kim Howells: The matter is important, but it is not one that can be included in the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland understands that, when drawing up the code of localness, we expect Ofcom to look imaginatively at those cultural aspects of which popular music is one of the most important to ensure that local character is not lost. If it tries to protect the position, as I believe it should, it will also enhance the popularity of the radio station in question.

Michael Fabricant: I am glad that the Minister has said that. In France, there is a strict quota system for playing alternate French records and English-language records—or Anglo Saxon records as they are called there—on rock and pop music stations. It is a huge bore to the French and the Minister is right to say that we should not prescribe what radio stations should do.

Kim Howells: The last French record that I can remember was by Jacques Dutronc and was called ''Et moi, Et moi, Et moi''. It came out in 1967.

Michael Fabricant: What about ''Je T'aime''?

Kim Howells: The hon. Gentleman is right—but the woman who sang that was English, and very tasty.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 301 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 302 - Local content and character of local sound broadcasting services

Andrew Lansley: I beg to move amendment No. 603, in
clause 302, page 261, line 19, at end insert— 
 '(7A) Before drawing up or revising the code, OFCOM shall have regard to the extent to which matters they are required to secure under this section are, or may be, secured by effective selfregulation; and, in the light of that, to consider to what extent it would be appropriate not to draw up, modify or withdraw a code under this section. 
 '(7B) In determining for the purposes of this section whether procedures for selfregulation are effective OFCOM may take account not only of selfregulation independent of those to whom it applies, but also of the extent to which the matters to be secured under this section are being, and are likely to be, secured without the further imposition of a code.'.

Peter Atkinson: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Clause stand part. 
 New clause 41—Local content of local sound broadcasting services— 
'(1) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to secure that appropriate local content is included in the programmes broadcast by local sound broadcasting services. 
 (2) In carrying out its duty in subsection (1), OFCOM shall— 
 (a) take all local sound broadcasting services receivable in any area together as a whole; and 
 (b) take into account the results of research carried out under subsection (7)(a); and 
 (c) take into account the extent to which the expectations of listeners for local content (under subsection (7)(a)) are being met by other services receivable within the area; and 
 (d) take into account the degree to which any action taken by OFCOM pursuant to this section may affect competition between local sound broadcasting services and any other class of service. 
 (3) OFCOM must draw up or agree a code giving guidance as to how the requirements of subsection (1) should be satisfied and, in doing so, shall have particular regard to the desirability referred to in section 3(3)(c) of promoting and facilitating the development and use of effective forms of selfregulation. 
 (4) The code may, in particular include guidance as to the relevance of different descriptions of local content included in local sound broadcasting services. 
 (5) From time to time, OFCOM may revise the code or direct that it should be revised. 
 (6) The code and every revision of the code should be published in such manner as OFCOM considers appropriate. 
 (7) Before drawing up or revising the code, OFCOM must— 
 (a) conduct research into listeners' expectations of local sound broadcasting services and other services receivable within any area concerned, including the extent to which they expect local content to be broadcast; and 
 (b) consult with persons holding licences to provide local sound broadcasting services or persons appearing to represent such persons, or both. 
 (8) In this section, ''local content'', in relation to a local sound broadcasting service, means content (including news or information) which is of particular interest— 
 (a) to persons living or working within the area or locality for which the service is provided; or 
 (b) to persons living or working within a part of that area or locality; or 
 (c) to particular communities living or working within that area or locality. 
 (9) References in this section to persons living or working in an area or locality include references to persons undergoing education or training in that area or locality. 
 (10) A code drawn up as a result of subsection (3) shall not have the effect of varying an existing sound broadcasting licence.'.

Andrew Lansley: We anticipated the content of the debate when issues of localness were raised under clause 301. The Minister said that the purpose of the Bill is deregulatory, and I agree. It is intended to be co-regulatory in its approach, and I agree with that, too. Amendment No. 603 would express that in the Bill. When we discussed clause 6, we referred to the extent to which Ofcom should have not only regard to what is already self-regulated and meets its objectives by that route, but to what may be self-regulated and may achieve the objectives set out under the self-regulatory approach. The Government said helpfully that they would think about such matters and perhaps return to them at a later stage.
 We have reached an important point at which prospective self-regulation needs to be included expressly in the Bill. I hope that that would be among the matters that the Government and Ofcom want to be dealt with in a self-regulatory fashion. It would do no harm and much good if that were specified. The new subsection (7A) that the amendment would insert into the clause would provide that Ofcom should attend to the extent of effective self-regulation and the extent to which the objectives could be achieved in the way I have outlined—without drawing up a code, or by modifying or withdrawing a code to some extent. 
 New subsection (7B) may be a little less transparent in its purpose. In clause 6, the effectiveness of self-regulation is considered with particular reference, first, to the independence of the person administering the procedures from those who are to be regulated and, secondly, to 
''whether adequate arrangements are in force for funding the activities''.
 Thus those two factors would be considered anyway. The point of new subsection (7B) is to provide that in the context of clause 302 consideration should also be given to the extent to which the relevant matters can be secured without the further imposition of a code. Without the new subsection, the obligation to operate a code—either a code imposed by Ofcom or a self-regulatory code—would remain in force. My contention is that we are dealing with a different kind of self-regulation in this clause. Potentially it is self-regulation through the marketplace, not just through a code. I want to include in the Bill the possibility that the requirement to operate a code would not be imposed. 
 I see the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East nodding. New clause 41, with which the amendment is grouped, would, if I understand it correctly, rewrite clause 302 to include a specific reference to research as the basis on which the code should be established, and to exclude references to 
 local advertising. It is difficult to understand how it could make sense for Ofcom to prescribe in a code the way in which local sound broadcasting services should include local advertising when it is clearly in their interests to include the maximum possible local advertising. 
 It is obvious that advertising could easily be left to the industry to take care of. We have plenty of examples of advertising self-regulation in other contexts. There is no reason why, if any kind of code is required, it cannot be run on an industry basis. In that respect I am very much in agreement with the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East. Even if we confine ourselves to that argument, it is clearly important that the Bill should not bind Ofcom to impose a code with respect to local advertising, but should instead give it the freedom to dispense with one altogether. 
 Ofcom might be able to go further. Self-regulation would, in this context, mean leaving things to the marketplace. I was persuaded of that to a considerable extent last year, when we first discussed the ''three plus one'' type of arrangement. I had discussions with, and observed the activities of, local radio stations and the radio industry more generally, and I noted the extent to which in practice they are persuaded that their commercial interests tend towards content that is highly local, and towards high visibility in the local community to stimulate interest in the station. That is true of, for example, Q103 and for Star FM. The commercial radio stations in and around Cambridge operate in that way to a substantial extent. My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford said that local radio station vans, reporters and other employees from such stations are almost invariably to be seen at events in his constituency. 
 If it is in the commercial interest of the industry to take such an approach, to what extent do we need a code to tell it to do so? The answer is, of course, that we need the back-stop power to operate a code. Commercial circumstances may well not be able to dictate what happens in every case. There may be a need for recourse to powers through a code. However, that would be to turn the clause around. The clause is currently structured on the premise that we need a code: there is practically no recognition on the part of the Government that localness could occur as a result of commercial pressures alone. The purpose of amendment No. 603 is to turn things around and to allow us to consider the extent to which commercial pressures and the market will result in localness being reflected in the provision of local sound broadcasting services. As that result could not be guaranteed, the industry itself could come forward with a perfectly effective and commercially-based—and hence flexible and deregulatory—approach by which localness could be assured.

Michael Fabricant: I follow the argument, but what if Clear Channel—a United States organisation for which I have a considerable respect, but which the industry is rather concerned about—were to acquire a number of radio stations and found that it could pull in large audiences based in the US and not be all that local? Its presenters could be based in New York, for
 example, and it could put in pre-recorded local identifications. Everything could be done on a PC-based system. The stations would sound like local radio, even though they were not; and because they had a good playlist, they might pull in a big audience. Would we not want back-stop powers in such a case? Perhaps not, if the stations were pulling in an audience.

Andrew Lansley: That helpfully brings me to another point: what does experience tell us? The experience of Clear Channel in Australia tells us that although Clear Channel was able to acquire many stations and sought to make substantial economies in the cost of production by centralising music and other services, it lost localness and that lost it a share of the audience. Increasingly, the response has been to reintroduce localness into service content. So far as that example is concerned, the evidence is that commercial pressures do not necessarily result in a move away from localness; rather, they can result in a move towards it.
 There is a second limb to that argument. We are not saying that clause 302 is the only mechanism through which localness is prescribed. Clause 302 is provided on top of licence content provisions and format prescriptions. It is a code that gives the industry a basis on which to assess the extent to which it is meeting localness requirements. What localness means is often subjective, and therein lies the problem. It is important that, when we do something essentially qualitative and subjective, it is done in a way that is flexible and related to the industry's circumstances. 
 I am persuaded by the industry's view, which is that the clause is a classic illustration of a case in which a regulator could, if it wished, intrude to a great extent on how a radio station managed itself, and could do so in ways that would probably be invisible to the listener. [Laughter.] Well, I suppose that they would inevitably be invisible to the listener; I should have said that they could not be discerned by the listener. Even so, they could have significant consequences in terms of costs or the operations of the station. It is important that the regulator is as commercially responsive as possible; that is at the heart of the deregulatory approach. 
 That brings me back my previous point. I do not think that my amendment would mean a free-for-all, or that responding to commercial pressures is likely to lead to the traumas that some predict. Back-stop powers are provided through the licences and will continue to be available. There will also be a back-stop power through the imposition of a code if Ofcom thinks that self-regulatory mechanisms or commercial pressures are not achieving the desired result. However, the amendment turns things around and is deregulatory in intent. If the Government agree, I hope that they will embrace the amendment for that purpose.

Brian White: I do not know whether it is because we were both members of the Joint Committee, but I find that I agree with the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) rather too much for my own liking. However, he is right on this occasion.
 I am a great supporter of accredited self-regulation as the way forward. The Government must take on board the idea of setting regulation as a back-stop in legislation and allowing the industry to develop self-regulation as an appropriate way forward. I am concerned about the way in which clause 302 is phrased. I agree with its objectives, but not with the way in which it defines localness through the processes and the way in which radio is produced. 
 Some of us attended the meetings yesterday of the all-party groups on community media and commercial radio, at which local radio stations gave good presentations on the sorts of activities in which they are currently engaged, how they get advertising, and the issues that such matters raise for small local radio stations. I am concerned that the detailed drafting of the clause could upset that balance. 
 The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire made a number of the points that I was going to make, so I will not repeat them. The clause is meant to be deregulatory and I think that it could be deregulatory. My new clause would ensure that Ofcom's decisions about localness are based on the research that it is required to undertake under clause 13, rather than on a regulatory view of what localness is. The definition of localness that the clause requires would be too subjective. If we reversed things and looked at the outputs that people in an area were receiving, we could consider whether the service was delivering. If that were the case, Ofcom might have a chance to get the code right. 
 The Commercial Radio Companies Association has commissioned research—due out at the end of February—that explores what listeners want. I hope that the Government will look at that research while the Bill is being considered in the Lords and that they will take on board some of the points that arise from it. I want the Minister to consider these key points: the code must be operated so as to work with the industry, it must allow the industry to progress, and it should not require over-intrusive regulations from the regulator.

Richard Allan: I shall be brief in commenting on what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland said. He might want to talk again about local music, so I shall try not to steal his thunder.
 The hon. Gentleman made an important point about the role of local radio stations in promoting local music. The Minister may be getting representations from people who are concerned about local music in the context of other proposed legislation that is presently being considered in Parliament. He will know that there is some sensitivity about the issue and that people who are involved in local music organisations currently feel that they are under the cosh. I can understand why there is some sensitivity about people getting a platform to play, whether on radio or anywhere else. It is important that we recognise that at this stage, because there is an essential difference between the two issues. 
 There is a fear that the differences between local radio and national radio might be lost more easily in 
 the music played than in the speech-based output. We can imagine that a local music station with a local music licence might predominantly, or exclusively, put out national music with speech and local news-based opt-outs, and such a station might feel that that was sufficient to qualify it as a local radio station. I was encouraged by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, who said that the Clear Channel in Australia did not succeed commercially when it tried to work on precisely those lines. I would hope that such an exercise would not succeed commercially, but much damage could be done if it were embarked on.

Simon Thomas: Not only would such a station not succeed commercially, but surely, under the format agreement that it had made with the Radio Authority—soon to be Ofcom—it would not succeed under the licence terms.

Richard Allan: I fear that it might succeed under the terms of licensing, because in broadcasting national rather than local music, it would not be breaching the format rules. I am not sure that the licensing agreement would specify what the format should be, or whether any distinction would be made regarding the type of music that should be played; the agreement would only mention ''music''. I am concerned that a station could drop its local music element without breaching its licence conditions.
 I understand the spirit of the amendment moved by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire. We do not want to over-regulate. One would hope that the market would continue to make such a differentiation and that local radio stations would continue to promote local radio. However, I am concerned and I want to hear from the Minister that Ofcom would be able to act robustly if there were a failure. There is concern about the impact of a failure over several years to promote and support local cultural activity. Whether or not that resulted in a company going bankrupt and somebody else taking over the licence, a hiatus would be damaging to local talent. 
 During earlier debates, we discussed local creative and cultural industries, which are especially important in regional and sub-regional centres. The loss of such a platform and local input in a radio station would mean that the people who provided that input would migrate elsewhere. Even if somebody else came along with a licence, the local base of talented people in the industry would be lost. That is my principal concern, and although I hope that it will not to come to pass, the example of the Clear Channel experience of trying to withdraw everything to the centre shows how such an exercise would cause such disruption to local cultural industries. I hope that the commercial imperative will not lead to that, but I also hope that the Minister can reassure us, especially about local music output.

John Robertson: I said most of what I wanted to say when I spoke to clause 301, so I shall be brief because I am conscious of the time and I want to give the Minister a chance to say something.
 Clause 302 recognises the need for Ofcom to ensure that local radio stations broadcast programmes that either consist of or include local material, and that those stations establish and maintain connections with the locality that they serve. The clause would oblige Ofcom to produce guidance to advise local stations on how the requirements could or should be satisfied. Clause 302(4)(a) provides that employment or other use of local people should be one of the factors to be considered when determining whether the requirement for local links is met. That is especially relevant to local talent. It is important that the condition recognises the way in which local radio provides a vital platform for performances by local musicians and new bands that are establishing local fan bases. That should be clearly stated in the Bill to avoid any ambiguity. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether he would consider provisions that reflect impact on local music creators. 
 Clause 302 states that the definition of local material includes news, but there is no explicit reference to any other local material, although it is possible that music will be given appropriate recognition by Ofcom as material relevant to the definition. There is real concern that the provision does not adequately address the vital interrelationship among local radio services, local musicians and musical events. I know what the Minister said previously, but I do not think that the Bill gives sufficient clarity about music. Music is the most important thing that anybody listens to. The public listen to music more than anything else. We all have record collections—who knows, the Minister might have some 78s somewhere.

Kim Howells: When my hon. Friend refers to music, he is talking primarily about pop music. What about other forms of music that might define the characteristic of a particular region?

John Robertson: There are many different kinds of music. Scottish Opera has its headquarters in my city and it would be very upset if I did not mention it. Jimmy Shand and his band were once very popular, and they certainly become very popular every 31 December as midnight approaches.
 Is it any wonder that the young do not identify with politics when this legislation does not mention the thing that is most important to them—music? That is a mistake. Music must be addressed in the Bill. I have to tell my daughter to turn her music down, so I can tell the Minister that I listen to all kinds of music—even the kinds that I do not want to listen to. Ofcom must be able to consider music, especially in the local context. We want the Bill to be all-encompassing, and music is of paramount importance to most people—if not to every person—in this country. 
 Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Five o'clock till Tuesday 28 January at five minutes to Nine o'clock.